247. Memorandum From Twining to Gates1
JCSM–149–60
Washington, April 11,
1960
[Facsimile Page 1]
SUBJECT
- U.S. Policy in the Event of War (NSC 5904/1) (C)
1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have reviewed the proposed amendment to
NSC 5904/1, prepared by the NSC Planning Board pursuant to NSC Action No. 2057, and have been unable
to reach agreement thereon.
2. Accordingly, forwarded herewith, as Appendix “A”, are the views of the
Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of
the Marine Corps; and as Appendix “B”, the views of the Chief of Staff,
U.S. Air Force.
3. It is requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff be advised of your
decision in this matter.
For the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
N.F.
Twining
Chairman
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Appendix A
[Facsimile Page 2]
VIEWS OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S.
ARMY; CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS; AND THE COMMANDANT OF THE
MARINE CORPS
on
US POLICY IN THE EVENT OF WAR (NSC 5904/1) (C)
1. The Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; the Chief of Naval Operations; and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps have reviewed NSC 5904/1 in light of the NSC Planning Board’s proposal.
2. a. The footnote associated with the title
of Section B was designed to eliminate from NSC 5904/1 an issue more properly resolved by
[Typeset Page 1021]
revision
of 1958 Basic National Security Policy (NSC 5810/1), and to allow publication of NSC 5904/1 (17 March 1959) before
completion of the review of the then current Basic National Security
Policy. Although the deletion of the footnote to Section B of NSC 5904/1, as proposed by the
Planning Board, would not specifically clarify the definition of the
type of aggression being addressed in this section, its deletion
without replacement is, in the view of the Chief of Staff, U.S.
Army; the Chief of Naval Operations; and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, an acceptable proposal since it is assumed that users
of this document will also have knowledge of NSC 5906/1, which considers the
various types of war. It is our recommendation that the Planning
Board proposal be accepted.
b. The Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; the Chief of
Naval Operations; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps cannot,
however, concur in any footnote, to the effect that a war with
Russia is
[Facsimile Page 3]
a general war, since nowhere in NSC
5906/1 is general war so defined. Furthermore, such a definition is
considered to be completely unacceptable by reason of inaccuracy.
Paragraph 9 of NSC 5906/1
recognizes that we are now engaged in a war with Russia; the cold
war. The Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; the Chief of Naval Operations;
and the Commandant of the Marine Corps do not consider that this war
is comparable to the conditions they envisaged would exist in a
general war.
3. If clarification of the subject matter of Section B is considered
desirable by the National Security Council, it is suggested that
either:
a. The title of this Section be changed to
read:
“US POLICY IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT IN WHICH
SIZEABLE FORCES OF THE USSR
ARE NOT INVOLVED.”
b. or, the following footnote be adopted:
NSC 5904/1, Page
2, Footnote:
“This section of the policy statement addresses itself to those
conflicts in which sizeable forces of the United States and USSR are not involved. Present U.S.
policy is based upon the concept stated in paragraph 16, NSC 5906/1, that ‘conflicts occurring
in the NATO area or elsewhere
involving sizeable forces of the US and USSR should not be construed as local aggression.’”
[Typeset Page 1022]
Appendix B
[Facsimile Page 4]
VIEWS OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. AIR
FORCE
on
U.S. POLICY IN THE EVENT OF WAR
(NSC 5904/1) (C)
1. I have reviewed the NSC Planning
Board proposal, which recommends that NSC 5904/1 not be revised at this time except for
deletion of the footnote on page 2 as an editorial change.
2. I do not agree that deletion of the entire footnote on page 2 of
NSC 5904/1 would constitute
only an editorial change. The first sentence states U.S. policy
which was current on the date it was approved (17 March 1959). The
second sentence establishes that the validity of this policy is
subject to re-examination when Basic National Security Policy was
next reviewed. That review has occurred. There was not action taken
in that review which in any way suggested that the statement of
policy in the first sentence has become invalid or that national
policy in this respect has been substantively altered. It is obvious
that the second sentence is no longer appropriate and should be
deleted as an editorial change.
3. NSC 5904/1 appropriately
amplifies the broad guidance contained in current Basic Policy
(NSC 5906/1) in that it
provides more definitive and more specific guidance for one area to
those agencies directly concerned. This guidance is valid, timely
and substantive. To delete the first sentence of the footnote would
imply a modification of national policy which has not occurred. In
addition, its deletion would remove useful and informative
clarification specifically applicable to guidance in this
policy.
4. Therefore, I recommend that the Secretary of Defense propose to
the National Security Council that the first sentence of the
footnote on page 2 be retained and that the second sentence be
deleted.
